Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'POST' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose whether this creates a new override or updates an existing one, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just one sentence containing the tool name, category, and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the essential action. However, it could be more structured by separating the purpose from implementation details like the HTTP method and path.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the override is added, whether there are side effects, what the return value is, or error conditions. The API endpoint detail is useful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description contributes nothing extra.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add Wage Override') and resource context ('Resource Management/Resource Planning'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying wage overrides, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'update_wage_override' or 'delete_wage_override' which aren't in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when wage overrides are appropriate, or what happens if an override already exists. It simply restates the tool name and API endpoint without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.